Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 219 posts

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#91

Post by jjk166 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #63
jjk166 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, continuously applying fresh duct tape to a fundamentally broken system allowing it to limp along allows the opponents to point to it and say "see, the system works as is" and the bias in favor of upholding the status quo wins out. By allowing things to fail, you force people to get engaged to do something to fix the problem, at which point actual change becomes possible.

> By allowing things to fail Nothing in this context is "allowing things to fail." It's simply strengthening rightsholders' hands.

It's a failure for those who want to weaken rightsholders' hands, which presumably includes anyone who wants to see the patent system completely torn down.

The point is if you want people to act, they need to first feel the pain of inaction. If the status quo is tolerable, there is less incentive to put in the great effort necessary for reform.

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#92

Post by BSEdlMMldESB »

HPsquared wrote: post #80
BSEdlMMldESB wrote: post #13

so which is it? "patents" being used by trolls? or American Corporations protecting their investments? I remember when I realized why software patents are not going away any time soon; it was the same thought that I had when I tried to consider the quantity (amount) of dollars represented as 'valuable assets' in IBM's finances; assets which are just software patents.

You can also go a level deeper and consider what the dollars themselves are, and why those will not go away either.

they'll become digital, like a cryptocoin.

the push to cashless USD is here and won't be going away

but what does the cashless evolution mean for wage based economy? I'm still thinking through this, but the future is catching up and it seems I will only have to wait some more before circumstances of life and the world force this upon the public; so I don't think I have to actually think through what this means... this will become the brave new society in which I'll die (assuming I survive the transition)

also, let's keep in mind the dollars like the ones you refer too, which "wont' be going away" were re-invented around the 70s, during the nixon administration, when gold was thrown out of the equation completely. but this ain't about metallic elements

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#93

Post by einpoklum »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #64
joemullin wrote: post #56

I work for EFF and wrote the text of this blog post and action. On here I speak only for myself, but a couple points I want to add. 1) EFF has only filed one IPR ever, (linked in the post), against Personal Audio, to invalidate a patent asserted against podcasting. This was crowd-funded by hundreds of people. It required years of litigation beyond the IPR process itself. 2) Patent challenges should be open to all. Th…

IPRs are pretty useful for challenging bad patents and should be very broad. However, I found myself in favor of this change, and honestly questioning the EFF's motives given how strong and personal (speaking specifically to the EFF's ability to challenge patents, not a generic third party) your expressed opinions were in this piece. I am very sympathetic to the argument that Unified Patents and other folks who offer…

I've been convinced by your arguments about bad faith IPRs by for-profit entities! ... and therefore, I suggest the USPTO also prevent for-profits from filing patents.

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#94

Post by jjk166 »

thfuran wrote: post #58
jjk166 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, continuously applying fresh duct tape to a fundamentally broken system allowing it to limp along allows the opponents to point to it and say "see, the system works as is" and the bias in favor of upholding the status quo wins out. By allowing things to fail, you force people to get engaged to do something to fix the problem, at which point actual change becomes possible.

Allowing important systems to fail is not without cost.

What course of action doesn't come with a cost? Fixing things well is expensive but fixing things poorly is generally more expensive in the long run.

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#95

Post by orangesite »

monocasa wrote: post #72
JamesBarney wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this true of all patents. Patents for drugs are obviously necessary in the current environment. But software patents are definitely bogus.

It's funny, the people I know in biotech say the opposite, that biotech patents are bogus but they don't think they'd be able to get rid of the system because of how much traditional tech relies on them. Their minds are blown when I tell them how much of an issue they are for us in traditional tech too.

The default narratives used to justify questionable industry practices fall apart so quickly when we engage in even the smallest amount of inter-disciplinary dialogue.

I'd love to see more of this.

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#96

Post by drschwabe »

joemullin wrote: post #53
drschwabe wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the links. How do you suggest startup entrepreneurs work around the broader moral dillemma here? On one had, we shouldn't feed the flames but on the other hand - we may need a foundation of patents for defensive measure or to reaslitically compete against the likes of IBM who have a gajillion patents. And I'm aware of at least one government grant programs that requires patents apart of their application p…

Can you point me to the government grant program that requires patents as part of the application process? That is potentially very concerning. I would be interested to learn more.

It's a Canadian tech grant; non-dilluting - and they don't explicitly specify it is a requirement, but from the rep directly working for the program and anyone who I've talked to who has applied to the program your chances of getting the grant are basically zero if there is no IP. Coincidentally, they have another smaller grant you can apply for that goes direct to a service provider of your choice; and basically they suggest you use this first to pay for a law firm to get a patent started and then apply for the larger grant thereafter.

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#97

Post by mughinn »

JamesBarney wrote: post #39
judge2020 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm starting to believe that all patents are at best ineffective, and at worse harmful in a globalized world, because it's not like airpods clones off aliexpress are actually being stopped at the port all too often.

I don't think this true of all patents. Patents for drugs are obviously necessary in the current environment. But software patents are definitely bogus.

I'm not sure about "obviously necessary", but they are one of the few cases where they may be somewhat justified

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#98

Post by drschwabe »

marcosdumay wrote: post #61
drschwabe wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the links. How do you suggest startup entrepreneurs work around the broader moral dillemma here? On one had, we shouldn't feed the flames but on the other hand - we may need a foundation of patents for defensive measure or to reaslitically compete against the likes of IBM who have a gajillion patents. And I'm aware of at least one government grant programs that requires patents apart of their application p…

If you are in the game, you have to play it. You don't have to advocate for it, and you can advocate against it. But you may not have much a choice on playing. Anyway, defending a patent requires some deep pockets, and if you don't defend them, they are just cost with no benefit. Besides, the IBM legal team will come knocking, won't tell you anything that can let you understand why, and you will have no other option…

Good points

> Anyway, defending a patent requires some deep pockets, and if you don't defend them, they are just cost with no benefit.

unless you just need them for gov't grants that require them - in this case it's an investment into a pre-requisite and if the net capital from the grant is higher than the cost of the patent you got then hypothetically you are ahead; unless there are recurring/other expenses involved in 'maintaining' the patent that I'm not aware of.

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#99

Post by moneywoes »

drschwabe wrote: post #48
myshpa wrote: post #6

Why Software Patents are Bad, Period. https://caseymuratori.com/blog_0027 Patents are out of control, and they’re hurting innovation https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/patents-are-out-of-control... Economic and Game Theory Against Intellectual Monopoly https://web.archive.org/web/20120121014753/https://levine.ss... PATENTS AND INNOVATION IN ECONOMIC HISTORY https://gwern.net/doc/economics/2016-moser.pdf Historical rec…

Thanks for the links. How do you suggest startup entrepreneurs work around the broader moral dillemma here? On one had, we shouldn't feed the flames but on the other hand - we may need a foundation of patents for defensive measure or to reaslitically compete against the likes of IBM who have a gajillion patents. And I'm aware of at least one government grant programs that requires patents apart of their application p…

> And I'm aware of at least one government grant programs that requires patents apart of their application process

Any examples? Interesting, first time hearing about this

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#100

Post by patrec »

linuxhansl wrote: post #68

I have a challenge out to all my friends: "Show me one, just one, software patent that is not obvious to someone skilled the field, and I will stop my annoying diatribes about how bad software patents are." To this day I have yet to see to a useful software patent.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US4405829A/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US6285999B1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US7478074B2/en
Post reply on HN